The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-03-17
GOVERNMENTAL
What is Going On in the De-
partments.
An Epitome of What Was
Learned at the Capitol
Yesterday.


patent to the heirs of Wilhelm Kuhlman
for 800 acres of land in Gillespie county.
An act to redistrict the state in judicial
districts, and to fix time for holding
courts therein, and to provide for the cleo
ton of judges and district attorneys in
such districts.
An act fixing the salaries of peniten-
tiary chaplains at 5000 per annum.
An act to restore the civil jurisdiction
of the county court of Bosque county.
An act to prevent the abuse of the
taking of fish from ponds and rivers.
An act to provide for the election of "a
district attorney in the Eighteenth
judicial district.
An act to amend the takring of depos-
itions of witnesses in civil cases.
An act to organize and establish the
county of Mills.
An act to create the counties of Buchel,
Foley, and jeff Davis out of the county of
Preside.
The st. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Rail
way company yesterday filed an amended
charter allowing said road to construct
branches of its main road from Mount
Pleasant to Sherman, and from point at
or near Sulphur Springs in a westerly or
southwesterly direction to Fort Worth.
To run a road from a point at or near
Chandler in Henderson county TO Fort
Worth. Another branch from Corsicana
to Hillsboro, and from Gainesville to
Brentwood.
There has been great deal of talk
about the late decision of the United
States supreme court in regard to drum
mers' licenses. The following is the case
and decision in regard to it:
No SIG. Sabine Robbins, plaintiff in
error, against the taxing district of Shelby
county, Tenn.-In error to the supreme
court of Tennessee.
This case arises out of the following
state of facts: Robbins was engaged IN
Memphis in soliciting orders for stationery
for Cincinnati firm, and in exhibiting
samples for the purpose of effecting
sales. state law, applicable only to this
one taxing district, was in force, subject
ing "drummers and all persons not hav
ing a regular licensed house of business in
the district, Offering or selling goods by
sample to tax of $40 week or $25 a
month" Robbins, who was a licensed
man, was tried, convicted and fined, and
on appeal the Judgment was affirmed.
The case has been brought to this court
on writ of error, upon the ground that
the law imposing the tax is repugnant to
that clause of the constitution of the
United States which declares that con-
gress shall have the power to regulate
commerce among the several states.
The principal question involved is as
to the constitutionalty of the act which
imposed the tax, and it IS in the opinion
of this court
A QUESTION OF GREAT IMPORTANCE
to the people of the United States, both
- as respects their business interests and
their constitutional rights.
In long and carefully prepared
opinion, by Justice Bradley, this court
holds that the constitution gives to con-
gress the power to regulate commerce
among the states, and that power is
necessarily exclusive whenever the sub
iects of it are national in their character,
as admit of only one uniform system or
plan of operation.
2. Where the power of congress to reg
ulate is exclusive, its failure to act indi-
Gated its will that the subject shall be left
free from any restrictions or impositions,
and any regulation by. the states, except
in matters of local concern only, Is re-
pugnant to such freedom.
3. The only way in which commerce be-
tween the states can be legitimately affect
ed by state laws, is when, by virtue of Its
police power and its jurisdiction over
persons and property within Its
limits, state provides for the security OF
life, limb, health comfort and property,ol
when it does those things which may Incl
IDENTIFY effect commerce. But in making
such internal regulations state cannot
impose tax on persons passing through
or carrying in merely for temporary pur-
poses, nor on property imported and moi
vet become the property of the common
mass; no discrimination can be made by
any such regulation adversely to the per
sons or property of other states, and nc
regulation can be made directly affecting
Interstate commerce.
Tn the matter of interstate commerce
the United States are, in the opinion OF
this court, but one country, and all must
be subject to one system OF regulations
and not to multitude of regulations. Ii
seems to be forgotten that the people Of
this country are citizens OF the Unltec
States, as we'll as of the individual states
and that they have some rights under th'
Constitution and laws of the former IN
dependent of the other and free from an!
interference or restraint from them. IL
deny the state the right to lay the tax o.
require the license in question will not
the court believes, in any perceptlblt
degree, diminish its resources. Goods
when brought into state in consequence
of a sale by drummer, will be liable tt
taxation, and as much will be realized as
if the tax were imposed before the sale
10 tax a sale of goods under such clrcum-
stances. before sale, is, in the opinion OF
the court, clearly tax on interstate com
MERGE itself. If the employment Of
drummers iniuriously affects local traffic
congress may be appealed to TO makt
such regulations as the case may oemanu
and congress alone can do this.
The confusion into which the commerce
of the country would be thrown by being
subjected to state legislation on this SUD
ject would be, the court says, but rePeti
ton of the disasters which prevailed uude
the old articles of confederation. Ih
Judgment of the Supreme court OF len
nessee is reversed, and the plaintiff Il
error is ordered to be discharged. Opln
ion by Justice Bradley, the chic
Justice. and Justices Field ant
Gray dissenting, on the ground tina
the law in question is applicable to drum
mers coming into the Shelby county dis
trict from other parts of Tennessee, a